Rumors of e-vote Fraud in Pennsylania, but Voters Like Machines

AVELLA, Pa. -- The reliability of Pennsylvania's voting machines was as important as getting people to the polls during yesterday's much-anticipated Democratic primary, which ended in a key win for Senator Hillary Clinton over Senator Barack Obama. For a nationwide e-vote process that has received as many criticisms and cutbacks as expedited results and accurate counts, residents here and throughout this bellwether state seemed to come away impressed with new high-tech interfaces.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

After the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pennsylvania and many other states switched from punch-and-lever machines to Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) and optical-scan voting machines. Individual counties were left to decide which vendors to deal with and which certified systems to buy, resulting in 10 different types of machines in use across this state.

Chester County, in southeastern Pennsylvania, uses an optical scan system, which requires voters to use a blue or black pen to fill in ovals next to their selection. The voter inserts a completed ballot into the machine for scanning. "It was very, very easy," said Bill Pardue, 57, who had his first experience voting with the machine yesterday. "It only took a couple of minutes to vote and less than that to tally them."

The most popular device, used in more than two-dozen counties across Pennsylvania, is the touchscreen ES&S iVotronic system, which records votes on internal flash memory. Poll workers then transfer summary data from each machine onto a Personal Electronic Ballot, which is taken to election headquarters or transmitted by a computer network.

The consequent lack of a paper trail has become a chief complaint from critics. It didn't help that the machines were discontinued in all-too-notorious Cuyahoga County, Ohio, after a study last December identified exploitable security weaknesses in touchscreen and optical-scan systems from the e-vote powerhouses--Elections Systems and Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic and Premier Election Systems (formerly Diebold). Cuyahoga County ended up using an optional paper-ballot system in Ohio's March primary (with paper ballots available to voters who wanted them), and Colorado followed suit last year by decertifying thousands of machines from the three companies (though they were later approved after the manufacturers addressed security and accuracy issues).

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Five months later, in Allegheny County, Pa., not too far from Avella, 33-year-old Michele Anderson said she's more worried about security when it comes to using online banking services than with voting electronically. She prefers touchscreen ballots to punch cards, because they are easier to read, allow voters to change their votes before casting them and leave less room for interpretation of write-in votes. "And you're more certain of what you did because you get to review it," she said.

There have been some human errors since Pennsylvania began using electronic voting machines, says Harry VanSickle, commissioner of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation. He's also heard some rumors of voter fraud in Philadelphia and Allegheny County, but is confident in the reliability of the machines. "I don't know of anything that's been proven," he says.

Voters in Washington County, in southwestern Pennsylvania, first used Premier AccuVote TSX machines in May 2006. The system of 700 devices in 178 polling locations cost $1.7 million (paid for in part by $1.4 million in federal grants). "They function pretty well, and the general sentiment is that the general public likes them," says Larry Spahr, director of elections. "The vast majority of opinion is very favorable."

Cameron Garmer, a roving technician who tests the machines before and during elections, called the AccuVote "amazing." They are easy to use, adjustable, give voters options like larger text, greater contrast and headphones with a special keypad, and have safety features that prevent residents from voting more than once.

While there may not be an exact paper trail, a tally from each device was printed at the end of the day, with copies given to election offices, displayed at polling locations and given to the minority inspector from each precinct. But the machines' biggest advantage is their ability to tally the final votes from each polling location by 10 pm (polls closed at 8 pm), said elections supervisor Dave Walsh.

Not every voter is adaptable to new technology. Washington County resident Jim Thompson, 72, said the AccuVote confused him a little the first time he used it, because he wasn't expecting it. He didn't ask for help, but "stumbled" through it on his own. "I like the old [punch cards] better," Thompson said. "If you gave me the option, I would go back to the old way. I felt more confident."

Age may or may not have anything to do with how comfortable voters are using the machines. Margaret Gavin, an 83-year-old from Venango County in northeastern Pennsylvania, has worked the polls since the 1960s and has assisted voters in using electronic voting machines.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Popular Mechanics participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.